富血小板血浆联合膝关节周围神经射频治疗膝关节炎的临床疗效

The clinical efficacy of platelet-rich plasma combined with radiofrequency treatment of peripheral nerves around the knee for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis

摘要:

【】目的 探讨富血小板血浆(PRP)联合膝关节周围神经射频(RFA)治疗膝骨关节炎(KOA)的临床疗效。方法 纳入我院收治的单侧KOA患者200例,根据治疗方法不同分为联合组(n=50)、PRP组(n=50)、RFA组(n=50)、对照组(n=50)。对比四组治疗前(T0)、疗程第2日(T1)、疗程第9日(T2)、28日疗程完成后(T3)、3月后(T4)、6月后(T5)的疼痛数字分级评分(NRS)、西安大略和麦克马斯特大学骨关节炎指数(WOMAC)、Lysholm膝关节评分(LKS)及术后不良反应发生率。 结果 T1~T5时,与T0相比联合组、PRP组、对照组NRS均降低(P＜0.05)；T2~T5时,与T0相比RFA组NRS均降低(P＜0.05)。T5时,联合组NRS显著低于PRP组、RFA组、对照组(P＜0.05)。T1~T5时,与T0相比联合组、PRP组、对照组WOMAC评分均降低(P＜0.05)；T2~T5时,与T0相比RFA组WOMAC评分均降低(P＜0.05)。T4~5时,联合组WOMAC评分显著低于PRP组、RFA组、对照组(P＜0.05)。T1~T5时,与T0相比联合组、PRP组、对照组LKS均升高(P＜0.05)；T2~T5时,与T0相比RFA组LKS均升高(P＜0.05)。T4~T5时联合组LKS显著高于PRP组、RFA组、对照组(P＜0.05)。四组患者术后不良反应发生率对比均无显著差异(P>0.05)。结论 关节腔注射PRP联合RFA对KOA的临床疗效优于单一治疗方案,长期效果尤为显著稳定,值得临床推广应用。

Abstract:

【】Objective To explore the clinical efficacy of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) combined with radiofrequency ablation (RFA) of peripheral nerves around the knee for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis (KOA).? Methods A total of 200 patients with unilateral KOA admitted to our hospital were included and divided into four groups based on different treatment methods: the Combined Group (n=50), the PRP Group (n=50), the RFA Group (n=50), and the Control Group (n=50). The Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) for pain, the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), the Lysholm Knee Score (LKS), and the incidence of postoperative adverse reactions were compared among the four groups at baseline (T0), on the second day of treatment (T1), on the ninth day of treatment (T2), after the 28-day treatment (T3), three months later (T4), and six months later (T5). Results From T1 to T5, compared with T0, the NRS scores in the combined group, PRP group, and control group all decreased (P<0.05). From T2 to T5, compared with T0, the NRS scores in the RFA group decreased (P<0.05). At T5, the NRS score in the combined group was significantly lower than that in the PRP group, RFA group, and control group (P<0.05). From T1 to T5, compared with T0, the WOMAC scores in the combined group, PRP group, and control group all decreased (P<0.05). From T2 to T5, compared with T0, the WOMAC scores in the RFA group decreased (P<0.05). From T4 to T5, the WOMAC scores in the combined group were significantly lower than those in the PRP group, RFA group, and control group (P<0.05). From T1 to T5, compared with T0, the LKS scores in the combined group, PRP group, and control group all increased (P<0.05). From T2 to T5, compared with T0, the LKS scores in the RFA group increased (P<0.05). At T4 to T5, the LKS scores in the combined group were significantly higher than those in the PRP group, RFA group, and control group (P<0.05). There were no significant differences in the incidence of adverse reactions among the four groups (P>0.05).? Conclusion The intra-articular injection of PRP combined with RFA shows superior clinical efficacy in the treatment of KOA compared to single treatment plans, with particularly significant and stable long-term effects, making it worth promoting and applying in clinical practice.